Monday, November 30, 2015

There's a new article at Bella Caledonia by Jonathon Shafi of RISE, which is - at least in part - yet another attempt to bang the drum for the bogus idea that "tactical voting on the list" is viable.
"The SNP’s electoral supremacy is so complete that all recent polls show a consistent pattern: the party can almost certainly win the Scottish election on the constituency seats alone."

That strikes me as a very slippery choice of words. Most people would concede on the basis of the current polling evidence that it is possible the SNP may win at least 65 out of the 73 constituency seats, which is what they would need to do to retain their outright majority in the unlikely event that their supporters are foolish enough to abandon them in large numbers on the list ballot. So yes, the SNP "can" do that, but what do the words "almost certainly" add? It's hard not to conclude that Jonathon is trying to convey the impression that the SNP "will" almost certainly win on constituency seats alone, but without making that claim directly. He's wise to avoid such an enormous hostage to fortune, because the most recent Ipsos-Mori and YouGov polls have the SNP on 50% and 51% of the constituency vote. That means if they slip only a few percentage points over the next five months (or indeed if the polls are overstating their support slightly), they will require a large number of list seats to win an overall majority - just as they did in 2011.

"Once we embrace this fact, the Scottish elections could suddenly become very interesting. For independence supporters, voting SNP twice becomes counter-productive to maximising independence MSPs."

When RISE issued their notorious "tactical voting" press release the other week, they prayed in aid a TNS poll that showed the SNP were on course to win "only" six list seats. Simple question : how is it counter-productive to prefer to hold onto those six pro-independence seats, rather than wasting list votes on a party that at the moment has almost literally zero support in the polls, and no credible prospect of taking any seats at all?

I was contacted by a reader a couple of hours ago, who asked this -

"How reasonable are [Jonathon Shafi's] claims?

I know you have written about this more than once, but the myths in this narrative refuse to die. Why?

Jonathon makes a broader appeal to support RISE as part of a new opposition to the SNP, one that replaces Labour and is independence-minded. This, for many independence-minded progressives, has great appeal and is, I suspect, one reason why the myths refuse to die.

Many of us would like to see Labour replaced by a progressive independence-favouring opposition that will hold the SNP to account.

To kill these myths, that if I understand you properly are more likely to undermine rather than enhance the chances of independence-minded parties being in a majority, it may be worthwhile exploring what the realistic possibility of a pro-independence opposition is and, critically, how it might realistically come about.

My guess is that Jonathon forgets there remains significant support for Unionist parties in Scotland and that, whilst we might applaud his ambition, his prescription is flawed."

The last sentence gets to the nub of it. Unionism has roughly 50% support in Scotland. For as long as that is the case, it's almost inevitable that the main opposition to the SNP will be a unionist party - and in spite of the current horror show, it's highly likely to be Labour. Jonathon Shafi is of course implying that it's possible to exploit a "bug" in the electoral system and get an overwhelmingly pro-independence parliament without actually doing the hard work of increasing support for independence. For reasons we've discussed many times on this blog, that's either a delusion or a con.

I'm trying to imagine what a viable pro-independence opposition to the SNP would look like, and I struggle to see it looking much like RISE or even the Greens. Where there is considerable scope for growth in support for independence is on the centre-right, so in theory there's a gap in the market for a popular pro-independence party with a very different outlook to the SNP - but I don't think that's the kind of alternative opposition that the "tactical voting" brigade are looking for.

There's also a very small chance that Labour might eventually attempt to triangulate themselves out of the pickle they're in by embracing independence, in which case we might end up with a pro-independence opposition automatically, as long as the die-hard "cultural" Labour voters keep the faith. Highly unlikely, I admit, but still more likely than Colin Fox as Leader of the Opposition.

138 comments:

The pattern is clear. The Scot Nat sis can hold onto power as long as the Scottish majority wish to remain in the Union. So the Unionists who hold various opinions and vote for various parties are lumbered with the Nat sis who will eventually fall to nepotism and corruption. It has probably started.

"Labour might eventually embrace independence, in which case we might end up with a pro-independence opposition automatically,"

My view is that to have a realistic chance of winning the next Referendum it is essential that a large number of current Labour supporters change from NO to YES. And looking at the shambles the Labour Party has become that may not be as far fetched as some think. Kezia has stated publicly that there is no problem for the brothers to support Independence which is a step along the road.

A Glasgow Labour councillor has come out in support of Scottish independence, putting him at odds with his party’s pro-union position.

Russell Robertson, who campaigned against separation in the run up to last year’s referendum, revealed his U-turn in an impassioned Facebook post.

It is understood the councillor for East Centre has also privately discussed following his former Labour colleague Stephen Dornan into the SNP...

...Writing on Facebook, Councillor Robertson said: “I am fed up to the teeth with London lording over me – the Tories stink, the House of Lords stinks, the establishment stinks, the anti JC (Jeremy Corbyn, Labour Party leader) agenda stinks, the blood lusting to bomb Syria stinks, the rule Britannia mentality stinks. “We are a nation and must govern ourselves – warts n all.”

"There's also a very small chance that Labour might eventually attempt to triangulate themselves out of the pickle they're in by embracing independence.."

It may have started already - a Glasgow Labour councillor declares support for independence and apparently at least four others voted YES last year. Kezia is said to be very relaxed about Labour voters/members supporting independence. Are they testing the waters or are we being prepared for something?

No. It's run by London. Labour members won't be allowed to campaign for independence, and it will be London Labour that will do the disallowing. In the same way that GWC isn't allowed to think for himself.

In my opinion Jeremy should have used the whip but he did not. Now the people of Scotland will see Cameron taking us into another disaster scenario, supported by Labour. What do you think that will do for the Independence support in Scotland? Will it also accelerate the movement of labour MPs, Councillors, Activists and Voters to the Independence cause. I think it will and today will be a historical turning point in that cause. How appropriate on St. Andrew's Day.

St Andrews Day is based on a myth like all the various saints conjured up by man tae keep the idiots in line. And you Nat sis are conjuring up your dreams just now. The Union is solid.And David Francis you weak minded Nat sis along with the hard left and liberals are more of a threat to liberty and free speech than IS and all the other religious freaks cobbled the gither.

I can't get rid of him. I can say that until I'm blue in the face, but people still won't take it in. Even if I deleted every single comment, some of them would remain up for hours before I notice them. If I introduce registration, he could register. I'm really not sure what people expect me to do. There is no banning facility on this platform.

Hi James, why not delete his posts? You don't need to do it every five minutes - just do it whenever you check up on the site. Why do you leave the messages there? What does it serve? This guy is spoiling your site. Please don't let him. Just delete all of his messages, then people won't respond. Please.

Another Blogger blog I read every day had to go to pre-moderated comments because of one single person. He was re-posting the posts the blog owner deleted as fast as they were deleted. There was really no alternative under the circumstanes.

It has severely curtailed the discussion on that blog, because it is no longer possible to converse in real time. It would be a much bigger issue for Scot Goes Pop. I totally understand James's problem and wish he'd consider moving to another platform. Wings can and does ban people for less than GWC has been doing.

If I wake up on May 6th to a unionist majority I will fall down laughing and have a joker-style grin plastered on my face for at least 6 months.

But if the seps win again then it sets up not as instantly pleasing a scenario as the first but perhaps a more interesting one. As the SNP stumble from one crisis to the next (it's the third term!), fall into the tory traps and fail to deliver a second independence rreferendum, we can watch them fail and be rejected - rather than simply falling victim to an electoral fluke.

And I think that would be more fun - and more in unionism's long term interests.

The civilian population in Nazi Germany supported and enabled the Nazi government. Willingly or unwillingly - they were part of the problem.

This is why Arab and Muslim governments must do more to oppose groups like ISIS. If they hadn't got off the ground in the first place, we wouldn't now have to bomb them out of existence - along with anyone else who happens to be there.

Regrettable, James - but so are the deaths of French, British and American children. Our children. I would blow up the middle east 5 times to prevent another Paris or 7/7 or 9/11. These are our people. We fight for them and alongside them - always.

Alec Salmund appeaser of Islamic Fascist maniacs who are trying tae out dae Adolf in atrocities. Piece off keech he is. People being butchered and raped. He sat on his arse while people were being slaughtered in the Balkans. He is the worst kind of detestable humans who make political capital while innocents are being murdered. A wee Joke scumbag in my estimation. I wonder how he would have helped the Jews during the War if he had been around. Sent them shovels maybe.

You need qualifications to be a doctor, a teacher, a nurse, an engineer. You even need a qualification to drive a lorry. I see no reason why the same principles shouldn't be applied to voting and running for parliament.

Aldo he wisnae Bonnie or Scottish and the idiot got a lot off Scots killed for his ego. But that was the Clan System. However we have the Nat sis now. Make ye vomit they wid. Tak ye bak tae Feudalism they wid. Real nutters.

I see that there is already talk of the American Intel Authorities "sexing up" the inetelligence on ISIL.

Ring any bells over here?

This looks like potentially being THE biggest disaster/debacle of the Pig Shagger and his pals - even bigger that the present sexual/blackmail scandal presently engulfing the Tories.

Cameron's alleged 70,000 "friendly" troops on the ground in Syria, turn out to be around 100 separate factions, all having their own territorial/ideological wars already and totally incapable of taking orders from anyone, let alone a "Western Alliance".

The whole thing will be an utter failure, will not destroy ISIL capabilities and will inevitably result in more chance of a direct terrorist attack on British soil.

If Labour rebels allow Cameron to claim a substantial majority for bombing Raqqa, the Labour Party as a whole, will suffer the same blame as the Tories, when the shit hits the fan and the "plan" falls to bits - and this will have a direct effect on Scottish Labour voters up here, who will be sickened with Westminster Unionists lust for yet another conflagration.

The SNP look very, very likely to come out of all this, with yet more support from disenchanted Labour voters and the attraction of Independence, to get ourselves completely away from those strategic imbeciles in London, who have a truly atrocious record of puting their big feet in the wrong place at the wrong time all over the ME, will only grow even more.

The losers in all this, are those poor tens of thousands of innocents in Raqqa itself, who will suffer yet more "collateral damage" from Western missiles and bombs, on top of the barbarity they already have had to endure from the ISIL nutters.

ISIL, of course, will simply go into their maze of underground tunnels, take off their uniforms and blend into the local populace.

Real intelligence on the ground is virtually non-existent and the "smart bombs" will not be able to find them.

Apart from giving Cameron and the dross that will support him, a collective hard-on, the whole thing will achieve nothing whatsoever.

Final warning? Where's that coming from? All I'm saying is that if people keep up the extreme swearing, I'm going to have to start deleting some of it. It's got nothing to do with GWC's sensibilities - the issue is extreme swearing.

David, you are absolutely right Cameron knows there are not 70,000 Syrian freedom fighters and there never was. The Arab Spring was also nonsense as has been proved in Egypt, Libya and Syria etc. You being an old bugger like me know it is about economic interests and trade. However this fascist IS needs tae be gone ASP.

Do you know what, Anon? I'm just going to delete that response of yours, because it's bang out of order. Pre-moderation is not appropriate because it would kill even the remotest possibility of debate.

As for "can't be arsed", I would have thought it ought to have been blindingly obvious to you that if I don't want to delete every one of GWC's comments individually (and I've already said that I don't), I'm hardly likely to be receptive to the idea of PRE-MODERATING EVERY SINGLE COMMENT THAT ANYONE EVER POSTS.

There is perhaps an argument to have a limited period of pre-moderation (but don't announce the time limit in advance) so that the trolling cools off a bit. Can understand if you feel that that is too much work though. Unfortunately as things stand, decent debate in the comments section on this site is nearly a thing of the past

I'm struggling to maintain my indifference to your stance on this James. Almost every commentator here is telling you that the current state of the comments is putting people off, and you are so determined to maintain the status quo that I can see people being put off by your stance on the trolling, more than by the trolling itself.

You seem so determined that everyone who visits this blog should wade through all the shite posted by GWC and other borderline trolls because of your own preconceived notion that somehow it would be detrimental to the fluidity of the debate - a notion that I don't see many people sharing.

Why not TRY it for a few weeks (take up the offer in this thread, even), and compare the quality and quantity of the debate then and now, as well as the general happiness of your readership, before coming to such a conclusion?

You are generally very thorough in your analysis and for that reason I continue to read your blog every day or two, however I cannot fathom why you are so, frankly, pig-headed about the one negative factor.

Mr D. Clark. So what has the Union done for us besides gettin rid of Clan Mafia and Feudalism. Building Bridges and laying roads. Opening up Scotland to the world. Building the greatest Empire ever known with Scotland being the greatest participant. So you will now unplug your computer in shame! So dae it now. China is now on the scene.

Dear James, while we waffle on people are being killed and degraded by IS. We know this is happening. The UN is supposed to stop this! And if not what is the point of the UN. SALMOND knows the killing fields are happening. And yet he plays politics.So if I have chosen words for him and the Corbinites then I do not apologise. We need to stop the killing first then talk the shite.

"St Andrews Day is based on a myth like all the various saints conjured up by man tae keep the idiots in line."St Andrews Day is based on a myth like all the various saints conjured up by man tae keep the idiots in line."

Sooo beyond the Pale, you either ban that clown or I won't be back,there's a "free platform" then there's just providing the knuckle draggers a free opportunity to say what they like no matter HOW OFFENSIVE it is to people of faith!

Sorry James I like your blog, but your so wrong about allowing freedom of speech meanwhile allowing THE MOST offensive poster I have EVER seen to say what he likes without ANY regulation. byejdman

Yes, goodbye. The moderation policy on this blog is fair to everyone, and I'm getting a bit sick of people trying to blackmail me into changing it. If you can't accept the decision is mine it's probably best if you leave.

Unfortunately it is no longer a free platform it has becom a GWC Platform. Whilst I agree with a previous post to simply ignore the offender it is obvious it is his desire to destroy this site. There is little you can do about a suicide bomber. However I for one will not allow him to succeed, I will ignore him, and I will go on posting as I feel fit. Thank you James.

What do you think we should do James? Here are the options as I see it:

1. Ignore him2. Reply to him3. Stop reading all comments4. Stop coming to your site5. You delete his comments6. Crowd fund a paid for website to allow you some way of banning him

Ignoring him won't work. The man is a committed troll, and he is determined to bring down your site. He sees the influence that you have, and he doesn't like it. People will always bite, because he is so offensive, and stupid. This leaves the comments section unreadable.

Replying doesn't work either. This is what he wants. People know who he is, from the content of his embarrassingly stupid comments. Somebody is going to say something libelous at some point, and what then?

The comments section used to be a very interesting part of your site. Whenever I read it now, I leave feeling bad. Somebody just called me a Nazi again, yay! If this is the only option, then I'll take it, but I this will diminish your site hugely.

There are two sites I go to every day. This is one of them. I've contributed money to this site, because I think it does a vital job. I don't want to stop reading this site.

You've already said you won't take his comments down, because it would take too much time. But you will take down comments with swearing. That doesn't seem fair to me, but it's your site, and your rules. Why can't you change your rules? Where are your rules anyway?

Why not try crowd sourcing a new platform? I would definitely contribute, and I'm sure others would.

Its your site and its up to you how you run it James.I think this site would be better without GWC.His contributions stifle debate and spoil things as he intends.Out of interest,what would it cost to get rid of him? For clarity,I'm not suggesting we crowd fund a hit man.I'm just asking what it costs for a paid for platform where he could be quietend down a bit atleast.

James, you have made it abundantly clear that this is your blog and your rules, but you would do well to at least take a step back and look at your blog as it is now, compared to how it was not so long ago. The comments have been effectively hijacked by one or two individuals to the point where it is impossible to have a civil discussion or even sift the wheat from the chaff.

You have allowed this and must therefore accept the consequences, one of which is seeing the genuine contributors slowly drift away and perhaps the eventual demise of the blog. Speaking for myself, I find that I now drift in and out, depending on whether I feel I have the willpower to wear out my scrolling finger or not.

It's your choice how you deal with the problem, but one thing's certain- it is a problem.

Oh, and if you are going to start deleting posts which contain swearing, you could do worse than deleting those containing "Nat sis". That particular word/phrase is a whole lot more offensive than most others.

Shagpile, I do not believe that posters cannot discern wheat from chaff, just that I, for one, find that I have better things to do with my time. As for being 'lesser' posters, I think you'll find that's your word, not mine.

I agree that there is a valid argument for letting the trolling remain as testament, but if nobody but the trolls visit the site anymore, then what was the point?

GWC is ruining this blog. He's achieving his goal. He's winning. It's as simple as that.

I have no intention of winning anything however if you do think I am winning then you must think you are losing. You need tae raise yer game then and stop hiding behind a veil of lies. Alex Bell told the truth. Now what you say!

I agree that he is trolling this blog, he is, what has become the sreriotype unionist. Unable to make a case for the union. Reminds me a lot of cooncilor Braveheart.

Not only has it not heard of Goodwin's Law, it would not be able to understand the thing.

However, I doubt he is damaging this blog. He/she is only making itself look stupid. That stupidity is not lost on you. Nor the rest of us... only the stupid.

The sacrifice made by those who faught real Nazis is not lost either. They would be proud of the fredoms they paid for with their lives. It may have the right to troll, besmirch and abuse. We have the right not to respond to the drivel.

It's his/her face that will be the only one smiling at the attention you pay it. Perhaps it's paid to troll. It is really hard to be passionate about a concept you cannot make a constructive case for.

Sorry James, I understand your reluctance to move to a platform where you can actively moderate/ban certain posters. However, GWC seems to have upped his game recently and the once great comments sections are fast becoming an utter farce. Personally I find GWC's constant comparisons of the SNP with Nazis as highly offensive, much more so than the occasional swear word (which are usually only uttered in response to GWC). I'm all for free speech and dissenting voices as without that you cannot have a reasoned debate, however there have to be limits.

If it were possible for everyone to just ignore GWC then that might maybe work, he'd get bored and move on? However he seems to have made commenting here his full-time occupation (making a mockery of his own pseudonym Glasgow 'Working' Class) and a quick count of the comments on this post alone shows that GWC has posted 20% of them (19 out of 98). With that sort of dedication to his cause it makes ignoring him virtually impossible.

I just turned 50 so maybe dementia is setting in, but I clearly remember we used to elect SSP people to our parliament on the list. If that could be done once oh Great Sage Kelly, why can it not be done again?

That one killer fact puts the lie to your SNP acolyte assertions that electing people from a similar ticket on the list cannot be done and is not worth risking your precious petals trying.

Well sod that. I haven't given the SNP my list vote for several parliaments. They are not going to miss it, are they?

That was then, before the Sheridan debacle. This is now, when in case you hadn't noticed, the SSP isn't even standing.

If you support RISE and its policies and want to see it gain seats in Holyrood, then vote for it. Nobody's stopping you. If you want more people to vote for the party, off you go and persuade people on the basis of these policies. Nobody will object in the slightest.

Just quit trying to bamboozle people whose primary support is for the SNP into casting a "pity vote" for RISE, on the basis of a pack of lies about misrepresented statistics.

And to get back to the main topic of the blog post, don't run away with the idea that RISE has any chance of gaining more seats than Labour, because it hasn't.

(Cue: "But it would have if all you selfish SNP supporters would just make us a present of your list votes, and stop trying to hang on to the paltry half-dozen list seats you might need to retain your majority. Why won't you do that? Wah wah wah not fair!")

Whilst watching Jeremy versus The PLP over the Syria bombing debacle I was reminded of being a teenager in the late 1950/60 era. This is when we were rejecting an Authoritarian society. Of course that process started around the first world war.

Jeremy is the reluctant teenager and the PLP think they are the Authority. It would appear Jeremy has the support of the membership but the PLP have control of the votes.

Remind you of something? The Establishment have control of the media and the Independence movement are gaining the support of the Scottish voters.

Where do we go from here? I think the Labour Party are finished both here in Scotland and down south.

How will they reform? Probably by forming two new parties south of the border and a Scottish Labour for Independence Party (SLIP) here in Scotland.

What will this mean for Scottish Independence? It will bring it a whole lot closer and more certain. Provided we do not let RISE & SLP delude us into “divide and rule”.

That said the YES movement including the SNP spent most of our efforts the last time, playing table tennis with how the numbers stack up today on a fixed income Barnett formula. What we need to do is ignore all that irrelevance and paint the picture of how Scotland could be if it was Independent, making it's own economic decisions and show our people how that would work to their benefit.

In all of the areas of life and economics we have the experts who could do this on our side. This should be organised like an improved version of the White Paper and include the draft constitution answering all the questions we were defending up to 18th Sept 2014.

Then a suitable launch date after May 2016 could be set accompanied with a full bloodied yell for YES resounding around Scotland. The preparation needs to start now. We gotta get organised, attack with our own ideas, instead of defending numbers that would not exist in an Independent Scotland.

GWC bothered me a bit when he first appeared. After a few weeks I just ceased reading his childish guff. I see 'Glasgow ' and my eye shifts down to the next post automatically. The same with 'aldo'. Train yourself to disregard both of them and the comments section is again readable.

There are plenty of sites throughout the internet where the ATL stuff is great but you wouldn't read the comments which are either rehashed twaddle or outright trolling,

This site often bucks that trend, as there are some very knowledgeable posters. Although I don't agree with a lot of what he says, I will still read Aldo's points as I don't really want to live in an echo chamber and, like it or not, it's another viewpoint that exists in world out there. I don't see the point in deluding myself that it isn't.

GWC, on the other hand, is merely rehashing the same nonsense over and over again so can safely be ignored. I have read his spiel and could write it myself, it's inane. So I too just scroll by, and would urge others to do the same.

James, whatever you do, don't change your policy. There is no doubt that GWC is out to troll your site, but he is only able to do so, because people react to him. Can I suggest to the regular contributors that for a short period, nobody replies to GWC. As John Donne said, no man is an island, and GWC needs your replies more than you need him. Your replies are the oxygen he needs. Starve him of oxygen, and he will either go away, or start making some sense.....:)